September 15, 2008

Left-wing feminists have a hard time dealing with strong, successful conservative women in politics such as Margaret Thatcher. Sarah Palin seems to have truly unhinged more than a few, eliciting a stream of vicious, often misogynist invective....

I disagree with Sarah Palin on a number of issues, including abortion rights. But when the feminist establishment treats not only pro-life feminism but small-government, individualist feminism as heresy, it writes off multitudes of women.

I wouldn't have titled this piece "Why feminists hate Sarah Palin." Young never concedes that the feminism that liberals say is the only feminism is, in fact, the only feminism. Nor would I.

There was a time -- I was there -- back in the 80s and early 90s, when feminists would speak of "feminisms" and were always promoting some new version of feminism that, we'd argue, was better than the last. We were way out in front of the liberal feminists. So it seemed, and we duly disparaged them -- from the left.

Those were heady times. But in recent years, feminism has been dominated by Democratic Party devotees who act like they own feminism, as if theirs was the only feminism -- as if they could dictate that all women should vote Democratic.

Perversely, this conventional Democratic Party feminism took over after Bill Clinton made it rather obvious that within the Democratic Party, the party's interests would necessarily supervene women's interests. The feminism of the last dozen years has been a dull, uninspired argument for keeping Democratic politicians in power.

But feminism is something that transcends party politics. Women have interests that the parties should have to compete for. I want a vivid debate about what is good for women. Sarah Palin represents one argument, and her feminism will require Democrats to improve their argument and not take women for granted. Sarah Palin brings feminism to a lot of people who've been scorning feminism -- because feminism has seemed like a strand of Democratic party politics.

274 comments:

"Sarah Palin represents one argument, and her feminism will require Democrats to improve their argument and not take women for granted"

To the extent that "require" connotes that they will actually do so, I'd say that's quite optimistic. We've seen the weapons that they've been happy to rely on against her so far, and I expect more of the same.

But when the feminist establishment treats not only pro-life feminism but small-government, individualist feminism as heresy

Please, where is the evidence that Palin is "small government". She is a typical Alaska politician--get as much Federal money as possible and appoint friends and family to cushy jobs.

Her reputation as a reformer appears to be more of the variety of blowing the whistle on corruption of others to get them out of the way of her own naked ambition. It is becoming more evident that she really doesn't care about reform, she just sees "reform" as a tool to use to advance her own power. Once she gains that power, she adopts the very same tactics (secrecy, cronyism, vindictiveness) that she exposed in others.

Liberal feminism lost all momentum when they gave Bill Clinton a pass for sexual abusing his employees. Under the 1994 Crime Bill, language that these same feminists lobbied for, Paula Jones had a right to any information that established a pattern of sexual predation in the workplace on the part of Bill Clinton. Thats why his affair with Moncia was more than "a private matter, just about sex". Jones had a right to discover if Monica was likewise coerced into giving Clinton oral sex in exchange for a job/promotion/interview with Revlon.

The only lefty feminists that have my respect is the Virginia chapter of NOW - at least they had the integrity to separate themselves from the rest of those posers and call Bill Clinton out.

She is a typical Alaska politician--get as much Federal money as possible and appoint friends and family to cushy jobs.

She is a typical politican. As to getting Federal money- whose money is it? That mney is supposed to go back to the states. What it is used for or wasted on is another matter.

As to the rest of your drivel, remember, Obama is a product of the Chicago Democratic Machine which appoints only family and friends to cushy jobs. If it were not for Emil Jones, a thoroughly politically corrupt individual, Obama would be just another part time law professor and Hyde Park denizen.

You prove the point Doyle, its not about being a "feminist" its about politics. As long as its about politics, it will not be about women, just certain ones, and there will be very little progress in the meantime. Same can be said about race relations.

Nice catch. The contradiction reveals that our liberal trolls here don't really believe in the things they lecture about. They'll latch on to whatever talking point they think will gain traction, as oppossed to acting on principle and good faith.

But it will be fun watching their heads explode for the next 12 years.

Yes, I said 12. I really need to market therapy for those that suffer from Sarah Derangement Syndrome.

You know, maybe Sarah Palin's pro-life stance is bad for feminism. If Roe v. Wade were overturned, female reproductive options would be diminished, and male reproductive options would be enhanced. That's not necessarily a bad thing, if one of the "options" was a morally abhorrent procedure that results in the death of a human being. Likewise, men no longer being the "second-class parents" in the eyes of the law would probably be a good thing even though it would diminish the empowerment of women back to a state of parity with men.

Feminist doesn't mean supporting a lying, ignorant hack just because she's a woman.

No, but it does mean that you support not only a woman who rode her husbands coattails to achieve political success, and support that husband even though he uses women as sex objects and uses his position of power to seduce them, but you betray everything you claim feminism stands for by defending him when he is caught using yet another underling for his debasing pleasure.

Because of their actions during the Clinton / Lewinsky scandal, the term Feminism has become a joke.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Besides, my concern is not her inexperience but rather her apparent lack of interest in national politics or international affairs prior to her selection as the VP candidate.

For instance, if Jindal had been selected (who really doesn't have a whole lot more experience than Palin) I wouldn't be as scared. Because although he is probably just as right wing as Palin, he is also extremely curious about every damn thing and just loves getting involved in the details (maybe too much, his press conferences during Gustav were impossible to listen to because he seemed to know exactly how much fuel each and every hospital in the state had for its generators). He wouldn't have gotten caught flatfooted when asked about the Bush Doctrine--he would have corrected Charlie Gibson's rudimentary understanding of it.

Feminism is a joke. It should be dismantled for the farce that it is. What a stupid notion to proclaim that feminism even has an establishment. An establishment of what? As far as I'm concerned the idea/theory of feminism has done one thing and one thing only and that is to sow a distrust between men and women and you can see that distrust in our culture, our law, and their roles as such.

The feminism of the last dozen years has been a dull, uninspired argument for keeping Democratic politicians in power.

To be honest, that's all I've seen of feminism as a political movement, ever, right from the getgo. To be more precise, it was decided by the feminist powers that be way back when that feminism's main calling card was being a vocal advocate for abortion rights. Period. End of debate. That right there wrote off a huge chunk of women, arguably 50% of the population, who do not agree with abortion, and it wedded feminism to the Democrat party, the party which promises to keep abortion rights protected. There may be more to feminism than just that, but that's pretty much all it's ever been as a political movement.

Because of their actions during the Clinton / Lewinsky scandal, the term Feminism has become a joke.

The big joke is how Lewinsky made a bunch of drooling Republican voyeurs look like a bunch of idiots at the hearings. If consensual sex killed feminism that one must assume she was incapable of simply saying "ZIP IT", and unable to resist the charms of a superior man and not in control of her own actions. Notice how no one ever accuses Lewinsky of killing feminism?

No, the values of achievement, accomplishment, success, self reliance, self determination, and individual responsibility; the ideals and values they espouse but do not actually expect anyone to have. It is called hypocrisy; the only ideal and value the left has.

If you want true incompetence and tokenism look to Obama. There is the epitome of incompetence and tokenism on display.

…her apparent lack of interest in national politics or international affairs prior to her selection as the VP candidate.

She is the governor of a state. Governors are more aware of national politics than junior Senators are. They even have meetings with each other throughout the year to discuss national issues through their own organization. Of course you probably did not know that.

Governors also have more knowledge of international affairs than junior Senators. Governors are always seeking international markets for their state’s goods.

Junior Senators do what they are told, vote on what they are told to vote on, vote the way they are told to vote, and try to get their names on as many bills as possible that they had nothing to do with.

garage: If consensual sex killed feminism that one must assume she was incapable of simply saying "ZIP IT", and unable to resist the charms of a superior man and not in control of her own actions.

Frickin mouthbreather. You're a product of liberal feminist hypocrisy. Lets break it down into something your feeble mind can grasp:

If you're having consensual sex with your secretary, and another employee charges you with sexual discrimination, then she has a right to ask if your secretary was likewise coerced. ie, it makes no difference if your relationship with your employee is consensual.

made a bunch of drooling Republican voyeurs

The Starr report was clinical, not porn. I guess you get off reading rape report from the ER? Pathetic.

It appears to me there are several "phases" of feminism, the origin of which goes back to the late Betty Friedan's "The Feminine Mystique." The second phase was the radicalization of feminism under NOW president Karen DeCrow. By radical I am referring to the argument made by the radicals that you couldn't be a feminist unless you had a lesbian experience. I think that period is where feminism as a movement splintered. And the complete alignment of NOW as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrats hasnt helped the cause of inclusiveness, and indeed the perception that NOW sold its soul by trading sex in the white house for support of abortion. Current feminism is at best a splintered movement, although NOW gets most of the headlines.

I agree with those who say Palin is great for feminism, precisely because she is going to make feminists in particular, as well as the broader public in general think of the broader meaning of feminism--and thats a good thing.

garage: she was incapable of simply saying "ZIP IT", and unable to resist the charms of a superior man and not in control of her own actions. Notice how no one ever accuses Lewinsky of killing feminism?

Good job. You should pass that on to Obama: "Its the woman's fault, her skirt was too short"

WTH is it with liberals? You'd think they'd have some understanding of the issues they claim to champion.

Fen, Trig may symbolize a pro-life morality, but I'm not sure where you take it from there.

I do agree that abortion is an issue that defines how easily social issues can be politicized. Those who insists that abortion is first a political problem rather than a moral one, must project -- and then must control -- a powerful, centralized, invasive Federal government.

The counter argument is that pro-choice advocates want to preserve a personal right from government interference.

But the fight to preserve this right always is taken to the federal level and is always prioritized over any consideration of the morality of abortion.

If abortion is tackled as an moral question, it becomes possible for women to be both feminist and against abortion, from the limited to the most absolute sense. Whether or not a fetus is considered a legal person does have significant impact on women, but that does not necessarily trump the moral question. Nursing babies also demand much from women, yet we reject infanticide.

A person may come to the conclusion that abortion is murder while remaining fully committed to the equality of women. If certain political implications become clear once a person reaches such a conclusion, this does mean the initial moral decision must be abandoned.

Oh bullshit. If Jindal had been selected, you'd simply replace his name with hers and parrot the same propaganda and smears you've been leveling at Palin

Bullshit on you. There are a lot of things I don't like about Jindal (his extreme religious conservatism, his promised ethics reforms have fallen kind of flat, he caved to the creationists and allowed a bill to pass that opens the door to teaching ID in schools) but unlike Palin, he is not a pathological liar.

It is getting ridiculous when the McCain campaign is lying so consistently and blatantly that even Karl Rove (the man behind the "McCain has a illegitimate black baby" smear) seems embarrassed by it.

Heck, McCain and Palin can't even get a simple, easily verifiable, fact about how much energy Alaska produces right. Even if you give them the benefit of the doubt and accept they meant "domestic oil production" and not what they actually said ("energy supplies for the country") they are still off by almost 6%.

A person may come to the conclusion that abortion is murder while remaining fully committed to the equality of women. If certain political implications become clear once a person reaches such a conclusion, this does mean the initial moral decision must be abandoned.

Agreed. Its a matter of weighing the Liberty of the Mother against the Life of the Child.

I'm less sympathetic to the Mother. She knows birth control is not 100% effective but makes a choice to take that risk anyway.

As to the fetus's humanity, advanced societies always err on the side of caution when a human life is involved - just look at how careful and deliberate we are when a criminal is facing the death penalty. We don't know with 100% certainty when a fetus "becomes" human, but we choose to kill it anyway.

Actually the term was coined by Charles Krauthammer, who ironically also coined the term BDS (I believe).

And it is true that there are many ways to describe the Bush Doctrine, which is why it was such a softball question (not a gotcha). If she had any familiarity with the term at all, all she had to say was something along the lines of: "If by the Bush Doctrine, you mean A, B, C, then I think X, Y, Z." Gibson didn't give her his definition of it until she basically gave him a blank stare.

What does it mean to be a feminist? It is an admission by women that men are the measure of man. Men are central. Women are tangential, peripheral, marginal. By their own definition. A masculinist man is contemptible. Why? Because men are "IT." They don't have to find themselves in opposition. And neither do women. Women are also "IT." But feminist women admit to not being "IT" precisely by defining themselves in opposition. To men. In other words, feminists, if the truth be told, have a massive inferiority complex.

That's interesting. Why would you think that? If the Roe-Casey framework falls, the only thing that will necessarily follow is the evaporation of the doctrinal bar to abortion legislation, and the return of the issue to the democratic process. Absent constitutional restraints, issues in the democratic process tend to be decided consistent with the preferences of the majority. And don't NARAL, NOW and their allies constantly tell us that they are the majority - that pro-lifers are just a benighted minority trying to impose our insular worldview on everyone else? It seems to me that the only reason to think abortion would be illegal in the post-Roe world is if you think that the majority wants to make abortion illegal. Are pro-choicers suddenly willing to say that they are in the minority?

Freder wrote: my concern is not her inexperience but rather her apparent lack of interest in national politics or international affairs prior to her selection as the VP candidate.

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

I see Palin more as a Dukakis type than a trojan horse for the religious right. Dukakis, remember, was the guy who ran on "competence." He was also the guy who started the Big Dig, the most expensive highway project in history.

Palin seems pretty similar. She's more of a typical politician than the McCain campaign would admit, but her record as a Mayor and a Governor, has been a focus on economic and fiscal issues than moral and cultural ones. Almost all of the "gotcha" tidbits I've seen were derived from the way she talked about her personal views, than from anything she promoted politically.

Cathy Young's op-ed is a disaster. Some feminists support Palin and some feminists dislike Palin. I suspect the feminists who dislike Palin are overwhelmingly liberal and that they dislike Bush and Cheney as much as Palin. If you clean up Young's sloppy use of language, false premises and faulty logic, you're left with the surprising conclusion that women who are liberals generally dislike extremely conservative politicians. What an insight!

If she had any familiarity with the term at all, all she had to say was something along the lines of: "If by the Bush Doctrine, you mean A, B, C, then I think X, Y, Z." Gibson didn't give her his definition of it until she basically gave him a blank stare.

Give it a rest Freder, it was a bullshit question from the start. Again, its like asking do you agree with Constitution? Which part? All of it some of it, I like that 1st Amendment but think the 2nd needs some re-tinkering?

Palin's counter question was perfectly appropriate answer to such a vague question. All Gibson had to do as the interviewer was be more specific but that wouldn't give the lefties the ammo they need.

Well Matt Damon had made a compelling argument that Palin was unfit for the office but I just found out that Lindsey Lohan is now on record that Palin is not suited for it either. And considering that it looks like Lindsey is opting for the fish taco over the keilbasa I think she speaks with the moral authority that only a true feminist can.

It was perhaps inevitable that the 1st feminist leaders would orient to the Democrat Party. They were from families with long ties to radical causes like Stalinism who grew up in nearly 100% Democratic jewish neighborhoods in NYC, or alienated lesbians that were forming their own insular, radical credos. And many feminists on top of those two groups were women who gravitated to almost uniformly liberal democrat social studies, psychology, literature and art history departments in academia.

They made critical mistakes in the late 60s and early 70s. They rejected old feminist movements focused on sufferage, encouraging housewives to vote more, and seeking to better women's lot in family and workplace. They insisted on a new radical line, and enforced that Party line Stalinist style around new additional goals of gay rights, date rape hysteria, abortion as a wonderful thing, men mainly demonized, use of government to "equalize pay" by dictate.

And they denounced women that did not buy 100% into their agenda as "not true feminists". Even booting such women out of their groups. Meanwhile, issuing many claim and statistics that academics found were just deceitful, nonfactual, propaganda...setting up their future big credibility problems.

Over the years they became so "wedded" to their new power and influence in Democrat ranks - their ability to enforce orthodoxy - and see their power manifested in Dem "feminist-inspired legislation" that they could not unbind their prospects from Democrat leaders prospects.

Thus the sight of the old NYC crowd, the man-hating lesbian faction, and feminist academics all falling on their swords to excuse Bill Clinton for what they sought to criminalize CEOs, Packwood, Tower, and Clarence Thomas for was both quite predictable yet hysterically funny when it happened.

They badly tarnished their brand - "feminist".

Maybe the name should go away despite Palin and others pandering to the concept from the Right.

Maybe we should draw back from such cancerous identity politics as feminism (And recognize as well identity politics also kills the leverage of blacks. Since they vote 90%+ Democratic in any election for "solidarity". With their own denunciations and outcasting of incorrect thinking blacks, like feminists, and are thus completely dependent on the goodwill of Democrat "Massah's" - instead of putting their vote in play for both parties.)

Maybe it's time to just discard those NYC Front groups, identity politics and go with KISS.

Be in favor of fair treatment of both men and women and work to achieve both goals.Be in favor of helping each racial group and ethnic group getting what they want as long as it doesn't hurt others. Want more blacks in elite schools? Fine. But also fight for blue collar whites who are great scholars to have their fair shot, too.

I blogged about this the other day, pointing out that liberalism trumps feminism, essentially negating their claim to be feministss. If I were sexist, I'd say, "Silly girls." Since I'm not, I'll say, "Silly liberals."

Feminism here is just a lot of nitpicking over abortion rights isn't it? What else is there? Womenhave come so far in the last 100 years in this country that all this "feminist" talk is moot. sy was right, Long live humanism.

It is. We used to have a sparring relationship. I even routinely complimented you as the only liberal here willing to stand by his convictions, willing to sacrifice his own family and city to remain true to your principled stand against torture to prevent a WMD attack on one of our cities. I honestly believed you argued in good faith.

No longer. These smear attacks, esp the ones by your kind in the week that Palin was announced, have changed all that.

Be in favor of fair treatment of both men and women and work to achieve both goals.Be in favor of helping each racial group and ethnic group getting what they want as long as it doesn't hurt others. Want more blacks in elite schools? Fine. But also fight for blue collar whites who are great scholars to have their fair shot, too.

Cedarford the egalitarian--who'd a thunk. Of course he is all for equality except for the perfidy of the Jews and of course the well-accepted fact that black people are just a whole lot dumber than white ones. So if things work out like Cedarford hopes, the Jews (those "Special People" we shouldn't have lifted a finger for in WWII) will be rooted out from pulling the strings from NYC and the mud people will be back picking cotton where they belong.

Perhaps it's not that left-wing feminists can't "deal[] with strong, successful conservative women" but rather that they were offended when it seemed like McCain picked Palin in large part to woo dissatisfied Clinton supporters (as many have pointed out).

To the extent that this is true, it made it seem like he thought all feminisms were the same--as if he figured any woman would do, and this conflated the type of feminist who would support Clinton (typically pro-choice, for one thing) with the sort who would support Palin, which demonstrates that the real failure to distinguish between the multitude of feminisms is McCain's.

These smear attacks, esp the ones by your kind in the week that Palin was announced, have changed all that.

My God Fen, where have I smeared Palin? True, I called her a pathological liar, but that is only because she continues to lie even after her statements have been exposed as untrue.

And now both she and McCain are claiming that Alaska supplies 20% of the country's energy. That is not even close to true. Alaska accounts for 14% of domestic oil production (and Alaskan fields are declining faster than almost any others). That's only 3.5% of domestic energy production and 2.4% of domestic energy consumption. They obviously don't care one whit about the truth.

Here is what someone named "Freder Frederson" posted at a blog called "Obsidian Wings" on August 8, 2006, at 8:33 a.m.

"I have consistently overestimated the intelligence and good sense of the Bush administration. And therefore, I am of the opinion, that if worse comes to worst, Bush and Rumsfeld will let it get even worse. They will ignore all the warnings of the professional military and as the Army slowly starves, and most importantly, runs out of fuel, they will insist every thing is just fine, until it is too late.

Remember, the most important and essential thing for the Army is its fuel supplies. All its fuel is trucked from Kuwait. The obvious way to really fuck the Army up north is to start blowing up the fuel convoys heading north. The fuel (JP-8--basically diesel) is trucked up north in tanker trucks just like the ones you see on the road here every day. The ones operated by the Army are painted green or desert sand, other than that they are completely unarmored. However, the vast majority are operated by contractors and driven by foreign nationals (Pakistanis, Somalis, Indians, Turks). The insurgents don't even have to blow up all the fuel trucks to stop the shipments. They just need to blow up enough of them to convince the contract drivers that whatever they are getting paid it is not worth it and they quit and go home.

The M1 tank gets about 3 gallons per mile (not mpg), the Bradleys do a bit better. They were designed to fight a defensive war in western Europe with an extensive road network and short supply lines. Actually, our whole supply and logistics system was designed to fight a war in Europe. That is why we are destroying our equipment in Iraq.

Our soldiers will end up walking and riding camels back to Kuwait, and that will not be a pretty sight. Sure we will be able to provide them with air support. But our most deadly close air support assets are extremely vulnerable to shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles, which of course there are plenty of floating around Iraq. We don't have many AC-130s in the inventory and if the Iraqis demonstrate that they can shoot a couple down, they would probably quickly be pulled."

Dude! What happened! We are all so sorry America didn't lose they way you wanted us to. Sorry we weren't humiliated. Sorry all our soldiers didn't die a horrible death in the desert.

From some of your technical terms (JP-8 and knowledge of tank MPG, it sounds like you are either in the military or were in the theater back then. As you say "...like the ones you see on the road here every day." Where is "here," Freder? And why do you write so eagerly about wanting to "really fuck the Army up north"?

Feminists hate hot dogs. Too phallic. A symbolic representation of the domination of the patriarchy. They would never let one touch their lips. That’s why you never see anyone eating a hot dog at a WNBA game.

that US senators are part of the federal government, which deals more with foreign policy than any state government.

Just because one is a member of the federal government does not mean they deal with or have experience with foreign policy. Summer vacations to Europe do not count as foreign policy experience. Wine and Brie junkets to France count for nothing.

Last time I looked, foreign policy was an Executive responsibility and privilege.

Governors over the past several years have totally bypassed DC to get foreign trade. Senators and Congressmen seem to forget who sent them to DC and who they are beholden to; sort of like Obama.

Governors travel to foreign lands, meet with foreign leaders and discuss trade deals. They even defy the State Department; you know the actual agency responsible for foreign policy?

You see, unlike the forgetful Senators and Congressmen, Governors actually represent the people of their state everyday and make some attempts to improve their economies.

Sarah Palin represents one argument, and her feminism will require Democrats to improve their argument and not take women for granted. Sarah Palin brings feminism to a lot of people who've been scorning feminism -- because feminism has seemed like a strand of Democratic party politics.

Yes Ann, how exactly would you define Sarah Palin's feminism? What does it involve? That women are allowed to hunt caribou and moose? Because that is about all I can see she stands for.

Alphaliberal said...Ann, it sure would be great if you at least tried to address an issue of substance here. how has Palin improved lives for working women?

Palin has improved the lives of working women by the absolute best method possible. By example. Her life is an example to working women that they can achieve, be successful, and have families. Her example shows that hard work and persistence pays off versus I am victim hear me roar.

Governors travel to foreign lands, meet with foreign leaders and discuss trade deals. They even defy the State Department; you know the actual agency responsible for foreign policy?

While this may be true of some governors or even of a hypothetical "ideal" governor, is there any evidence that Ms. Palin did any of these things (or that she has even actually seen Russia from Alaska). Has she even seen Canada from Alaska? She apparently doesn't spend much time in Juneau.

Turns out she didn't even go to Iraq like she claimed (just the Iraq-Kuwait border) and her "trip" to Ireland was actually a refueling stop on her way back from the visit to Kuwait.

There was a time -- I was there -- back in the 80s and early 90s, when feminists would speak of "feminisms" and were always promoting some new version of feminism that, we'd argue, was better than the last.

Feminists hate Sarah Palin because she can be a successful powerful woman and still be feminine. She has it all. A big time job as Governor. A family that loves her. A husband that loves her. The respect of her friends and neighbors. A very high voter approval rating. People that like her. People that see themselves in her and would like to see her get elected instead of an Ivy league elitist.

What she doesn’t have is a freezer full of frozen tofu dinners and a cat.

I do not know how true that is. But, we have a governor here who refuses to live in Springfield. His lifestyle has caused grid lock in Illinois and angered both parties. He is a Democrat, so all criticism is hands off per the media. BTW, he is another corrupt Chicago Democrat and a friend of Obama.

Actually we hate her because she's George Bush with a pony tail, but you can continue with that line of crap if it makes you feel better.Real feminists don't think women deserve a break because they are women. If they are full-of-shit stooges fronting for a morally bankrupt consortium of cutthroat business interests, then they deserve to be deflated. Vote on the issues or be a sucker.

I completely agree with the original post. And here's the thing, it's possible to agree that she's great for feminism (which for me is absolutely congruous with humanism, in fact is inseparable from it), even if you don't want McCain/Palin to win & disagree entirely with their platform.

I think in the heat of the election battle, it's hard to see just how many assumptions are being shattered, minds are being changed. About men and women, Republicans and Democrats, what they think of themselves and each other. Possibilities in terms of life choices, forms of life/family; harmonizing what may have seemed (to many) discordant values; pragmatic political possibilities (in terms of electability, what one may assume about certain voting blocs, how they're mappable); assumptions about our differences from certain "others," etc. etc. etc. It's a good thing, and as a woman (human, American) I'm excited about it.

Did I say she was raped, idiot? You were blaming Lewinsky for not preventing Clinton from sexually abusing her

Ok I get it your mad this morning. Obama is inching back up and Sinking Sarah's unfavorables are skyrocketing. But really, a blow job by any stretch of the imagination can hardly be called abuse. Or explain to us why women have to give blowjobs when a man exposes himself.

Talula -- [the Palin pick] made it seem like [McCain] thought all feminisms were the same...

I definitely think you're right that this explains some of the specific feminist reactions to the Palin pick. That very idea induced nausea in Judith Warner, for one.

But the key word in your statement is "seem." What "seems" is not necessarily what "is," especially when the seeming is almost pathologically self-projecting.

McCain's strategists certainly knew that Palin's gender would shake things up, but the idea that Palin was supposed to grab all Hillary's supporters is sheer fantasy. Most inside stories on the Palin pick emphasized that McCain had been impressed with her for some time. In turn, a number of political analysts pointed out the attraction of her reformist reputation to the reformer McCain.

So for these feminist to take personal umbrage -- and focus their anger on Palin rather than McCain -- demonstrated a total lack of rational thought.

Where they exposed themselves as charlatans was in thinking rhetoric and theory could mask the complete thoughtlessness of their malevolence.

Real feminists don't think women deserve a break because they are women

Yah, all of a sudden, when its convenient to the talking point of the day. "Real" feminists don't have situational ethics like you. Bush with a ponytail? Typical. Why not simply parrot feminist dogma and assert that Palin is not really a woman.

yashu, I've known hundreds of self-identified feminists over the decades. Contrary to the stereotypes, they've all (with 1 or 2 whacked exceptions) support all "possibilities in terms of life choices, forms of life/family," as long as the woman has control over her own life.

But can you point to a policy championed by McCain or Palin that would improve lives of American women? (It seems no-one else here can, including Ann Althouse!)

Some of you here are apparently okay with this because not only do you accept their lies, but you actually defend and justify them.

Probably the same way you can accept your candidate claiming he wasn't present for any goddam America sermons for 20 years. Or his claims that McCain gets all his money from PACs and lobbysists or that Ayers is just some neighbor down the street.

All politicians lie, all of them say things that aren't quite true. The only problem is that you seem to think its only a sin when conservatives do it.

McCain and Palin treat people like they are idiots. They lie to people and expect people to accept their lies as truth.

Mickey Kaus:

Lecturing the public on what's 'true" and what's a "lie" (when the truth isn't 100% clear) plays into some of the worst stereotypes about liberals--that they are preachy know-it-alls hiding their political motives behind a veneer of objectivity and respectability.

Some of the cited feminist authors are asking "What will a VP Palin mean for women?" and "What sort of example does Palin set for women?" as well as "Can women relate to Sarah Palin's life?" These all seem legitimate, understandable questions.

I also think it's a legitimate point to make that Palin has advantages most women do not have, such as a husband who works flexible jobs, and an assistant, Ivy Frye, known as "the babysitter". Similarly, Carly Fiorina's AT&T executive husband retired to take care of her and their household when her career took off.

Care to show me anywhere in the Constitution where this right exists?

Another statist. Once again, the Constitution limits the powers of the Federal government; it does not define the scope of the rights of the people.

Lecturing the public on what's 'true" and what's a "lie" (when the truth isn't 100% clear) plays into some of the worst stereotypes about liberals--that they are preachy know-it-alls hiding their political motives behind a veneer of objectivity and respectability.

Well that's nice, but sometimes the truth is 100% clear. Yet even when it is (like the 20% claim), some people don't seem to care if McCain and Palin tell bald-faced lies.

Here is a another example of GOP vs. Democratic policies that affect women.

A Senate committee voted Thursday along party lines 11-12 not to lift a recently imposed ban on beach access on Hatteras Island.

The ban was imposed to protect nesting birds. These birds aren't on the endangered list...they just happen to be on the beach.

No one can use the beach for miles. You can't even walk on the beach. If you are caught, the penalties are draconian and imposed on the entire community. (One violation causes the forbidden zone to be expanded.)

As a result, families who live in beach towns are being severely hurt by big drops in tourism. Economic impact? "Horrible." Eastern NC is highly dependent on tourism and real estate.

To recap, the GOP voted to help women put food on their tables; Democrats voted to help birds.

Feminism ceased to exist in the 1980s. Bill and Hillary pounded the coffin lid shut in the 1990s. It is now merely a shell, full of socialist nostrums and meaningless lingo (e.g. "equal pay").

Its entire raison d'etre is now having abortions. Absent that it is nothing; just another identity group seeking a share of power and money which benefit only insiders.

Why be a feminist at all? Abortion isn't going away.

Liberals are negating themselves in record numbers. The US abortion rate is at a thirty year low, yet still reaches 1.2 million per year, out of 4 million births per year in the U.S.)One in 5 aborted.

And the abortion rate in NY City is three times the national average despite easy access to birth control and contraception. More than 250 abortions are done every day in NYC.

Since Jan. 22, 1973, there have been roughly 50 million abortions in the United States, and more than one-third of adult women are estimated to have had at least one. 50. Million.

Continuing Margaret Sanger's 1939 “Negro Project, African Americans are aborting in record numbers. Though they are only 13% of the U.S. population, 35% of abortions in the US are performed on black women. Three of every five African American women will abort a child; 1,452 babies aborted every single day.

In contrast, between 1882 and 1968, 3,446 blacks were lynched in the US.

Clearly, women are using abortion as their birth control method of choice, and (as per Sanger), to reduce the numbers of undesireables. Hurrah for Democrat Party Feminism. Success!

Some of the cited feminist authors are asking "What will a VP Palin mean for women?" and "What sort of example does Palin set for women?" as well as "Can women relate to Sarah Palin's life?" These all seem legitimate, understandable questions.

No one can use the beach for miles. You can't even walk on the beach. If you are caught, the penalties are draconian and imposed on the entire community. (One violation causes the forbidden zone to be expanded.)

According to the article you linked, the ban is on driving on the beach. It is possible, although not stated in the article, that specific nesting areas are off limits. Cape Hatteras is a National Park. Part of its mission is to preserve and protect wildlife. It is not there entirely to generate revenue and as a resource for local businesses. A balance must be struck between the recreational and preservation functions of the park. Banning off road vehicles is perfectly appropriate in a National Park.

One reason why I know it isn't is because McPalin are lying constantly on the most trivial shit. Over, and over, and over. Even when called out on it by almost every major media outlet. That's the reaction of internals from a campaign that think it's going to lose.

Moonbat: "Some of you here are apparently okay with this because not only do you accept their lies, but you actually defend and justify them."

DBQ: "You all keep saying lies. Be specific. What actual EXACT statements are lies. Not your interpretation of their statements. The EXACT statements."

Exactly. After 7 years of "Bush Lied" and then the recent wave of lies about Palin from the MSM, the Left has ZERO credibility re "lies". All they have is unfounded assertions, molehills hyperbolized into mountains, and smears against Palin's family. Its hardly unreasonable to ignore them when they fail to back up the bs with fact.

garage: One reason why I know it isn't is because McPalin are lying constantly on the most trivial shit. That's the reaction of internals from a campaign that think it's going to lose.

Your analysis is crippled by your misperception. Want to bet on it? If McCain/Palin win, you leave this blog never to return. Same for me if Obama wins. Thats how certain I am. Obama cannot buck this trend.

The fact that the Republicans don't support Equal Pay for Equal Work is a benefit to women.

A great many small business are run by women. They would be harmed by this bureaucratic overreach into their hires and fires.

Many women take advantage of part-time jobs to gain more flexibility in child rearing, pursuit of higher education, and handling personal businesses. Government regulation that associates certain pay outcomes with specific jobs will make it harder for women to make these type of flexible arrangements with employers. I've seen this effect personally when a company I worked for had to abandon a very family-friendly personal time-off system because it didn't fit the rigid requirements of employment law. Also consider that many Equal Pay studies don't properly assess the value of part-time and freelance work; the idea that an Equal Pay law would somehow get this right belies rational thought.

Businesses respond to regulation by become more conservative in hiring and firing and more rigid in their internal structures. This makes it harder for businesses to create jobs and harder for people to change jobs. The result is more unemployment which devastates the working poor -- of both genders.

Many more women are now graduating from college than men and in the future are as likely to be hurt by Equal Pay laws as helped.

I hope a lot of women voters read this thread to decide which party respects them and is working to improve their lives.

- Equal pay for equal work? I'm for that as long as the applicants are equally qualified. Isn't this already the law? I'm not for affirmative action and against making accommodations for women and minorities. Against forcing companies to have a percentage hired irregardless of their actual qualifications.

- Improving Domestic Violence Why is this just a women's issue? Men are often abused as well as children. In any case, other than the police when there is criminal abuse, why is the government involved in the first place. This is a private issue and should be handled by private organizations that want to help. Many charities have shelters and counseling for abused spouses.

- Reproductive rights?There is no right to reproduce or not reproduce. Who cares. If you want babies screw all day. If you don't use birth control or keep your knees together. If the government was forcible sterilizing people that would be one thing. They aren't.

- Health care in general? When people stop smoking, drinking, eating crap and begin exercising, then I might be interested in health care in general.

- Preventing Unwanted Pregnancy? Don't fuck around.

- Improving Child Support Collection? Probably the only one I actually agree with you on. However, how about improving the fairness of child support so that men who are not the father's are not tapped for child support just because they happen to be handy. Punitive bankrupting of the father to support the children happens often. Horror stories abound.

- An end to a "war first" foreign policy that drains resources we need for domestic needs?

Not a women's issue. In fact most of these are bogus issues that the left wants to assume that feminist women are concerned with or that are central to being a feminist.

Feminism isn't about political issues. I was completely turned off in the 60's and 70's by the radical burning the bra feminists. They were annoying, strident, selfish, rude, condescending and frankly just in my way when I was getting my degrees at college. Being a feminist is NOT playing the victim card. Not whining about the mean men or how life is unfair. Not trying to BE a man instead of being a woman. Hating the feminine things about yourself and other women.

Being a feminist is doing just what Sarah Palin has done. Get the job done, don't let people push you around but still keep your femininity, be a professional or hard working woman, with a family and a give and take relationship with your spouse. Balance in life. The ying and the yang without making a big freaking deal about it.

Talula said..."Perhaps it's not that left-wing feminists can't 'deal[] with strong, successful conservative women' but rather that they were offended when it seemed like McCain picked Palin in large part to woo dissatisfied Clinton supporters (as many have pointed out)."

Many have claimed that this was his motivation, but it's by no means clear that this was the primary motivation. There are several extremely good reasons to pick Palin that have nothing to do with "woo[ing] dissatisfied Clinton supporters"; quite aside from the most obvious reason of all to pick her (the drawing of a line under the axis of avarice), I think that McCain sees her as essentially in the same mold as himself, and she shores up McCain's cred with conservatives. The reaction of our party to her combined with the reaction of their party to her shows very clearly that she was a slam dunk pick on our own terms - so why import this additional "get Hillary" rationale into it? Just because the media has uncritically pushed it since day one does not make it so.

Dust Bunny Queen said..."[The left] all keep saying lies. Be specific. What actual EXACT statements are lies. Not your interpretation of their statements. The EXACT statements."

Don't hold your breath. All you're going to get is a bunch of spin about what she's said about the bridge to nowhere (from which gossamer fabric they've stitched together the astonishing claim that she's lied about it) and the like. So desperate are they that the latest claim of "lie" is over the claim that Obama will raise taxes - "it's a lie," they bleat, "because Obama has promised to cut taxes!" The sleight of hand, of course, is that while Obama has said he will cut taxes, he has also promised a spending explosion with few parallels. Anyone who thinks that Obama isn't raising taxes either can't do basic math or hasn't read what Obama proposes. And yet when McCain points that out, that's a "lie" because Obama's said he won't raise taxes. Meaningless obfuscation is all you'll get from the Obamabots.

Simon, the conversation seems to have gone on while I was perusing other blogs, but I thought your remarks deserved response.

Assuming, as you do (and as I hope myself), that an overturn of Roe/Casey would merely put abortion law back in the hands of state governments to legislate as their consciences dictate would still be a win for male rights and a diminishment of female empowerment. The mere fact that abortion would no longer be the only seemingly unassailable constitutional right would be a win for men, regardless of whatever the states wind up doing.

That being said, I wasn't actually speaking to any legal reality. Rather, I was speaking specifically to the feminist idea that their rights are "threatened" by conservatives. And I'm agreeing. But if feminism actually meant "equality" (which the very construction of the word argues against) then they should be against this little bit of female superiority.

I've never identified much with feminists. When I started college in 1970 I went to a couple of women's retreats but didn't find much to interest me. No surprise in retrospect that a woman going into engineering didn't find much in common with those who would evolve into cultural studies types. They seemed to me to talk the talk but not walk the walk. I needed the guidance of other women who were fighting the same battles as I, and I didn't find it in Women's Studies.

I do think that Feminists formed their positions against a generation of men who are soon to be gone. (Although the misogyny expressed in this thread makes me think about re-evaluating that idea.) I did have an instructor who was upfront that he would not give a woman an "A" because he didn't think women belonged in Engineering.

Such men were not unusual in the beginning of my career. I found the younger men coming up the ranks didn't have the same attitudes as the old fossils. Was it feminism? Or that many of these guys had mothers or wives in the work force?

Good point on Roe v. Wade. Where I live (WA) overturning Roe v Wade would have essentially no effect, as abortion was already legal in 1970 (and even earlier, if you could convince the provider it was "therapeutic".) Oh, OK, it might trip up a few partial-birth abortions, but other than that, no effect.

The sleight of hand, of course, is that while Obama has said he will cut taxes, he has also promised a spending explosion with few parallels. Anyone who thinks that Obama isn't raising taxes either can't do basic math or hasn't read what Obama proposes. And yet when McCain points that out, that's a "lie" because Obama's said he won't raise taxes. Meaningless obfuscation is all you'll get from the Obamabots.

Now of course it is true that neither candidates tax plans add up. But as far as the gap between spending and revenue in the two candidates plans, McCain's is the one that will bankrupt the government more quickly. So to claim that Obama will have to raise taxes to pay for his proposals may be true in the abstract, but it is even truer for McCain's.

(from which gossamer fabric they've stitched together the astonishing claim that she's lied about it)

Very eloquent Simon. But by any reasonable definition of the word "lie", she has lied and continues to lie about it. Congress withdrew the earmark while she was still supporting the bridge. She could have still used the money for the bridge, but alas it wouldn't have covered the cost of construction. So she canceled the project and kept the money. She never said anything close to "thanks but no thanks, if we want it we'll build it ourselves" to Congress. The latter half of the claim is even more egregious, since it implies she not only rejected the bridge but returned the money.

quite aside from the most obvious reason of all to pick her (the drawing of a line under the axis of avarice)

Yes, this makes abundant sense. Choose the governor of the state with the highest per capita earmark spending (ten times the average) who actively sought earmarks while she was both mayor and governor. Perhaps McCain was thinking, "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer" when he made the pick.

Salamandyr, I can't agree with your characterization of putting abortion back into the legislative arena as a "win for male rights." Two immediate thoughts. From my perspective, it's a win for the unborn, male and female alike, because I think that NARAL et al are wrong: their position is a minority in this country, and after abortion goes back into the democratic process, most states will adopt positions consistent with the real majority on abortion, i.e. legal, but drastically circumscribed compared to today. Moreover, I find this idea of abortion as a male/female battleground dificult to reconcile with the reality that there is no statistically significant gender disparity on abortion - Pew has found that men and women split in almost exactly the same numbers on almost every abortion question.

Stridently told his supporters to not pick on the girl and then ignore her entirely and go after McCain.

As long as Palin is the focus of the attention the McCain/Palin ticket is stronger. If the focus is on McCain, the ticket is back to the weak state it was before.

McCain is terribly flawed candidate. Although I find him much less flawed than Obama. Many swing voters are still in the middle on this, yet Obama has been playing to his base, not to the swing voters who will make the difference.

The point is that Palin matters because Obama and his base believe she does. And that will be their undoing.

I think the men's rights issue with abortion is that women get post-conception rights while men don't. A woman can decide that she can't afford a child... a man can't... at least not post-conception.

I've suggested (not entirely tongue in cheek) that men be given post-conception rights to "abortion". They should have the right within 3 months of notification that they've "conceived" to file for an abortion, giving up all rights and responsibilities.

That way if *they* don't think they can afford to support a child, they have the same right as a woman who makes the same decision.

A man will STILL not have the right to KEEP his child... so men's rights on this are still less than women's reproductive rights.

but she still requested $256 million and Alaska is still the king of Federal pork.

No it isn't.The parasites of the Imperial City get 5.55 dollars in Federal spending for every dollar they pay in taxes - and 5/8ths of the city is STILL a high-crime 3rd world shithole despite being propped up so much by the nation's taxpayers.

Next at 3.75 is Louisiana with mostly Katrina and levee and NOLA parasite spending

Then comes New Mexico, Mississippi at 2.05 bucks for each tax dollar sent to the Imperial City. Then comes Alaska, N Dakota at about 1.70, mainly a function of small population and many military bases. Then West Virginia, a function of the Grand Kleagle,...err...Main Senate Appropriator - Robert Byrd.

Next up is the Congressional whores making Virginia and MD the next two biggest pork snarffers by all the spending in DC Metro outside DC limits to Beltway Bandits and various poverty pimp Fronts.

If you segue to the ones who are most screwed by the Feds instead of rewarded - you have New Jersey at .61, Nevada at 0.65, CT at 0.69, Minnesota at .71 , and New Hampshire .72

Put all this in perspective. In 2000 the GOP argued that America needed "change." Republicans nominated a relatively politically inexperienced "outsider" instead of a two term senator. Republicans insisted that a candidate with experience in Washington would be unable to bring about real "change."

Then Bush happened. Twice. Now Republicans say America needs "change." Again. Who do the Republicans think can bring about "change?" Their second choice from 2000! What's his main qualification as the candidate of "change?" "Experience!"

Please, please, please, give us a break! Your first choice from 2000 screwed things up so badly that even the GOP wants "change." Now you seriously want America to let your second choice try to fix the mess that your first choice made? How stupid do you think Americans are? (Answer: Quite possibly stupid enough.)

Freder Frederson said... McCain and Palin treat people like they are idiots. They lie to people and expect people to accept their lies as truth.

Obama has treated the whole country like they are fools. He is a living lie, his campaign is an evolving lie, and he is the largest myth ever perpetrated by the people in over two hundred years. He gives Rip Van Winkle credibility as a real historic figure.

The hostility toward women and feminists from the right wing is palpable. They can't even say what their candidates would do to help women.

Oh brother. I thought we finally got beyond the women need more help because they are weak victims meme. This is 2008, not 1965. The better question should be what are women going to do to help themselves?

Well it has been proven to do so. The problem is that increased government spending has outpaced the revenues. More money in my pocket means more put into the economy via investment or consumpion. Seriously, my 11 year old learned that basic economic concept in Kid Town at age 9.

But as far as the gap between spending and revenue in the two candidates plans, McCain's is the one that will bankrupt the government more quickly. So to claim that Obama will have to raise taxes to pay for his proposals may be true in the abstract, but it is even truer for McCain's.

May be true in the abstract? Freder, we can't pay for the current spending now. Can you point me to where Obama will somehow be able to balance the budget, reduce the deficit by raising taxes on the tope 5%, reduce taxes for everyone else AND also pay for his new spending proposals?